How to Haggle, lesson one

Hi Texugo, I would just like to discuss our little conflict concerning the floating village price. The thing of it is that I am not good at haggling either, so I have definitely overpaid for certain things as well. However, the guy I was traveling with had it down to an art form. He managed to get discounts on our meals, getting a double helping for the same price, by letting the waitress know I am still single. In this particular case we got the round trip for $7,- each. However, talking it over later, I noticed we could have got an even better price.

Anyway, realize that the people in Siem Reap simply want to make it appear as if the prices are fixed so that you will think you got a fair price for it. Haggling is a part of the culture, however, and if one is a local one gets still better prices. This proves haggling is still done and that you simply overpaid. In fact, it is the reason why I placed the range of prices there so that people will know how big a margin can be expected.

Ah. Well, don't doubt my haggling skills. It appears that I was thinking of the other floating village tour, where you can't haggle any more than you could haggle for a train ticket at the station ticket counter... Texugo 09:31, 10 January 2011 (EST)

Really? And I thought I was just more attractive than you! There goes that illusion...How did you like the floating village btw? --Faust 11:17, 10 January 2011 (EST)

Asklipio‎

Hi Texugo, I thought I left an edit note that I moved the content on the church across to the main Rhodes article. However I overlooked it. I did note tht on the Votes for deletion page though. My oversight. I don't think this article has much chance of developing. I deleted the content as I had moved anything of interest across to the main article and it appeared to be a dead bear with only your own minor clean up edit on it last year. Yes I know it is meant to stay there until a 'consensus' is reached but the content had already gone off to the main article. Please have a look over the Rhodes articles and see if you think there are any improvements that can be made to the structure of the islands articles. It was a bit untidy before and the main article was piling up with content that should have been in the sub-articles, most of which appeared to be somewhat abandoned. The south of the island is barely covered at this time as is the interior. That island seems to have a lot of articles on it felix 12:46, 23 January 2011 (EST)

Hi Felix. I thought the merge was a bit premature, as it would only happen if there were a consensus to delete. Please see my comments on the vfd page. Texugo 21:20, 23 January 2011 (EST)

Hi Texugo, you are entirely correct. Good work, and indeed maybe it was too premature to remove the content. I think the south needs some attention and I am reluctant to put content into the main article as it will no doubt then fill up again with regional content that should be in the local sub-articles. Trouble is though if we run with Asklipio then info on Gennadi and nearby Prasonisi is not really appropriate there. I don't think Gennadi and nearby Prasonisi can currently support stand alone articles either. However if we start regionalising then where do we stop. I would appreciate your views on this as I was a bit concerned about this issue when I was considering how to handle southern content when editing the other Rhodes articles. Do you think it is appropriate to have a southern region section in the main article or is that just going to create a different problem? felix 03:42, 24 January 2011 (EST)

Eastern Visayas

Hi there! I am editing Eastern Visayas being my home region, where I was raised. May I respectfully inform you that information on LGUs, specially on capital cities and towns, should be as accurate as possible. In Philippine LGU setting, some cities may not necessarily or automatically be capital of a province but in some instances, a town may become the provincial capital despite having a city in the province. A case in example is the province of Pangasinan, where the town of Lingayen is the capital despite having San Carlos, Dagupan and Alaminos as big cities. A town in the Philippines is conceptualized as a municipal unit just like a city. Hence, the label 'town' is interchangeable with the label 'municipality' but a city cannot be because the label 'city' means an elevation by law in unitary level - from a town to a city. Cities cannot be reversed to town level, except when a law that converts a town to city has been reversed by finality in the Supreme Court of the Philippines as in the case of Borongan in Eastern Samar, Baybay in Leyte and Catbalogan in Samar. Conversion of towns into cities have to meet certain criterion as mandated by the amended Local Government Code of 1991. Therefore, writing about details on LGUs of Eastern Visayas has to be written in accurate label as possible which I am doing to make Eastern Visayas Wikitravel article accurate. Thanks.

From the traveller's point of view it is not important how the government administratively designates communities. Whether they are towns, municipalities, cities, metropoles, or villages, we have a section header called "Cities" that we use, which contains a single list of no more than 9, with hub city or capital of the region first, followed by an alphabetized list of the other 8. Feel free to put as much info as you want in the descriptions, but please don't stray from our article templates or create extra sections like "Other cities". If you have any questions, please let me know.Texugo 01:27, 24 January 2011 (EST)

Nanao edits

Hey,
In the eats section you removed photos of a couple of places and was just wondering why? Also, do you work for wikitravel? Have you been to Nanao before? I don't mean to sound accusatory or angry or anything, just curious.

Hi there. I'm an administrator, but I'm just a user like you-- I don't work for Wikitravel:

Hello, Texugo,would you, please, point out the reason in deletion policy for this article being removed? Maybe it is better to insert a message?
Best regards.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grinski (talk • contribs)

Style tags

A quick request - when you add the {{style}} tag to articles, can you also add a sentence explaining why it was added? For example: {{style|This section should use Wikitravel's [[Wikitravel:Listings|standard listing format]].}}. Without an explanation the tag simply links to the MoS, which doesn't provide much reference to a new user as to what needs to be corrected. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:19, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

I'll keep it in mind. I don't really think anyone had noticed your suggestion until recently. Anyway, the Style tag is almost always used because either the listing format or template is wrong, and the convenient thing to me about using the style tag is that I don't have to spend time explaining what is wrong or remembering what policy page to point people to. For me the style tag is more a way to bring it to the attention of those of us who are familiar with the style rules, rather than as a teaching tool for new contributors. Perhaps we might devise instead a variety of style tags with more specific advice so that we don't have to write it out every time? I drop way too many style tags to want to write out the problem and the policy page link every time. texugo 23:38, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Please give it serious consideration - at present there are almost 350 articles tagged with at least one "style" tag, and even as an experienced contributor I'm often unable to figure out why it was added to an article, or whether the offending edits have since been cleaned up, so it's not just for new contributors. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:50, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Well, I think maybe we need to dredge up some more thoughts on this topic from others. But what if we had tags like {{stylelistings}}, {{styleheaders}}, {{styleprose}} etc. that gave a little more detail about what's wrong? texugo 23:59, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

Rather than confine this to a user page, would you mind having that conversation at Template talk:Style? -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:24, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Laos

Hello. I am disppointed that your have reverted this page to a version by 'Swissbelg', and then blocked editting. His recent actions have been both unhelpful and arrogant. Three people, of which I am one, have editted the wording of a section. 'Swissbelg' has consistently reverted these changes. Not only is the version he insists on less accurate but he appears to consider his opinion superior to those of others: 3 other people. When a number of people are consistent in oppostion to his then it seems reasonable that he should accept that his edits shouldn't remain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.180.108.136 (talk • contribs)

When an edit war occurs, we are encouraged to keep the status quo (the version previous to the edit war) and discuss on the talk page until a consensus is reached. You may say that 3 other people disagree with Swissbelg, but it could just as easily be you at three different IP addresses-- it would be helpful to make a user account so people can see who made what edit more easily and to give you a little credibility-- and you have been told more than once to bring it up on the talk page. For the record, I agree with Swissbelg, that we at Wikitravel prefer colorful, entertaining prose. What is written there is not wrong because it is obviously tongue-in-cheek, and that's fine. texugo 21:39, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

By the way, I blocked editing only for unregistered users who haven't bothered to make a user account. texugo 21:39, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

"What is written there is not wrong because it is obviously tongue-in-cheek, and that's fine." But the issue is 3 people wanted another version (which itself was not wrong) but 'Swissbelg' chose to ignore this consensus and insist on that they preferred.

This edit summary [1] clearly demonstrates that 'Swissbelg' believes "what they think is correct, everyone else is wrong and therefore what they think should be included."

It's very easy to identify that the changes which 'Swissbelg' ignored and rubbish are from 3 different people: [2], [3], [4].

"..unregistered users who haven't bothered to make a user account." And do you really believe your and 'Swissbelg' actions encourage people to join? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User_talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Like it or not, things are being reverted back and forth, and that is what we call an edit war. When that happens, we keep the pre-change version and we take it up on the discussion page. I'm not saying your change will not be allowed to stay, but you cannot make your point by edit warring. Please state your reasons for wanting the change on the discussion page at Talk:Laos. texugo 05:28, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

Peterfitzgerald

I saw your note on Peter's talk page. Not only hasn't he been here, repeated e-mails have gone unanswered as well. LtPowers 13:12, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Thanks

hi there! I've repositioned Krasnaya Polyana as a separate destination, as actually this is a real settlement 40 km away from Sochi with its own infrastructure and nationwide popularity in Russia. It will also host all the mountain cluster of Sochi Olympics (like was Wistler near Vancouver). Administratively Krasnaya Polyana is included into Great Sochi borders, but I believe it should have its own page. There is only one such case in that region, so I will not create more pages for Sochi districts. Rgds, Andrey

DOM

Hi there (with apologies for a cut and paste message). I am trying to muster up some interest again in the now almost moribund Destination of the Month feature. This used to be one of our more dynamic initiatives with lots of debate. Sadly, that is no longer the case. I have made some new nominations to try to get it going again. If you have a moment please pop over there. And some nominations would be good if you can think of any! Thanks. --Burmesedays 10:22, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Brazil maps

I think the Brazil state maps you are doing are looking really great. The one recommendation that stands out off the top of my head would be to change the stroke color for the regions to white and make it a little thinner—the black lines are a little bolder than the aesthetic the regions map expedition has veered towards. It looks like Claus is going to do the top-level regions for Brazil, so pretty soon we'll be looking at a well mapped big country! --PeterTalk 22:31, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Excellent work! My main comment is similar to Peter's, but I would suggest pale grey for the stroke and not white. And definitely a thinner stroke as Peter says. Also the font size for the region name could do to be a little larger I think and italicised as per the standard in the Wikitravel:Regions Map Expedition. You could even try using no stroke for the regions. That gives a very soft effect which I personally like very much. See for example: Image:Uganda_Regions_map.png. Great to see more maps emerging! --Burmesedays 23:42, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the feedback. I have been trying to make the changes you suggested, but I'm having a lot of trouble with my Inkscape crashing all the time and haven't managed to get it done. I would be grateful if one of you guys has time to do it, as I'm getting pretty frustrated having Inkscape crash every time I try to export a .png. If you do, please don't forget to update the Portuguese version as well. Thanks!

One more thing--Please let me know if you have any feedback on the proposed regionalization/map at Talk:São Paulo (state). texugo 11:05, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

If you give a list of specific image names, very happy to download and help implement those style changes. --Burmesedays 02:42, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Vandlism

why have you deleted my Historic county of Lancashire article.im sick to death of having this discusion with wikipedia and wikitravel,when will you and others like you realise the historic county of Lancashire.i dont understand what you are trying to prove as the queen says we are in Lancashire as she is the duke and the government say we are in Lancashire.i and most others would much rather believe people who are in charge of the country rather than just members of the publics opinion.i cant believe that you could be so ignorant,i have actually spent time writing this article and you have come and distroyed it.why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.24.71.211 (talk • contribs)

Hi Texugo. I know you are not a fan of infoboxes, but as there was no clear consensus from the Traveller's Pub discussion, I thought I had at least been given a chance to develop the idea within the Lüneburg Heath region. I agree the current infobox has some spurious info, but part of the plan was to change the town/city infobox to something more akin to real tourist guides with more tourist-related info, perhaps like "Must see", "Must do" - we are still working out what to include. I would appreciate being given the chance to do this within this limited area and then, when ready, run it for open review by others. In the meantime, you're forebearance would be welcomed. Regards. --SaxonWarrior 15:30, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

As Ryan stated in the midst of that discussion (before a great deal more dissent came down), "It sounds like there may not be consensus to include quickboxes for all city articles, but that there might be hesitant support for high-level region articles". You never had enough support to do this with city articles, and by the end of the discussion, I'd say it's a waste of your time to try it even with state articles, which was the only thing I was willing to let you try.texugo 21:18, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Texugo, I'm not trying to persuade you of the merits of infoboxes - I can see that you're dead against them and unwilling to compromise - but Wikitravel is built on proposal, discussion and consensus and I will be asking the community for no more than that. Regards. --SaxonWarrior 12:26, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

Exactly right, but since you are proposing something that has been proposed and shot down many times before, please keep your proposal to talk pages only. texugo 00:27, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Route Icons

Chikuma

Hi there. Thanks for your advice with the Chikuma site. It looks like with city sites there is always a Get Out section. So what is your reasoning for taking it out? There is a lot of things to see for day trips outside Chikuma, so I think that section would be very useful for travellers. Cheers. Peter

Soltau

Hi,

I have noticed that you keep changing a number of my entries and i am unsure as to why you are doing it?

Looking at the edit history of Soltau, all changes made by Texugo are explained with an edit note, bar one. That last one is because throughout Wikitravel we do not capitalise the 2nd word of a section heading. Please see Wikitravel:Article_templates for the full scoop on that. --burmesedays 06:05, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

Images

Hi there,
do you know where the images I put on the Chikuma site went?
Nagano99 00:50, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

Hmmm... I didn't realize it was in the template like that too-- how unfortunate. As an English major and long-time English teacher though, I will insist that "by foot" is incorrect (albeit used informally sometimes by a minority of people), and would be marked as incorrect on any officially recognized test of the English language (TOEIC, TOEFL, IELTS, etc.). I would argue that "By foot" makes us sound a little uneducated or unprofessional. Plus, I would venture that the large majority of articles we have with this section read "On foot", regardless of what the template says. It would appear the LtPowers slipped that in to the Sections list without anyone really taking notice. I'm a huge proponent of consistency on our site, but not to the extent that we stretch the language into colloquial incorrectness. texugo 02:31, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Interesting. It does not really matter, but for my own curiosity, why would "by foot" be marked as incorrect? My first degree was also English, and I am not seeing why it is grammatically incorrect.

There is, somewhere in the unfathomable labyrinths of this site, a debate on By foot versus On foot. I remember reading it some time ago. Somebody might know where it hides.--burmesedays 02:51, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

I object to the implication that I "slipped" anything in as if it were done surreptitiously. That page was based on my best knowledge of current practice, not on any personal agenda. LtPowers 15:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

For the record, LtPowers wrote that before our asinine discussion. --PeterTalk 17:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

Banyuwangi

I am assuming you did this in error as it reinstates the gibberish in Understand and lots of capital letters for the restaurant listings? I am reverting to my previous version. Cheers. --burmesedays 20:59, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Yeah. Didn't mean to do that at all! texugo 22:23, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

iTravelFree

Thanks for the heads-up re iTravelFree - I'll take a look at that when I next have time to focus on the app. (If it's any consolation, I think there are only a tiny handful of edits via the app per week; most of its users use it read-only.) Rezendi 09:45, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

I have notice you have changed, and keep changing a lot on the Bad Fallingbostel page. I work for The Hive and have been instructed to put as much information as i can in. As Fallingbostel is a very small town I thought it best to add in information on surrounding areas, such as theme parks and wild parks, like on the Walsrode page (which I see you have been working on). For example on the Walsrode page in the 'See' section you have put a sub-heading 'near by' with information on the wild park, bird park etc. So I did the same on the Bad Fallingbostel page, but in the 'Do' section (same difference really) but you have now taken this off, and put the information in the 'Getting out' section. Well I thought the getting out section was supposed to be information on how to get out of the town, to other towns, like you have done on the Walsrode page. So i don't understand why on one page its one way, and on another page its a different way??????

Also I see you have taken out the information I put in the 'buy' section, i.e. the shopping centres. Yes I know they are not actually in Bad Fallingbostel but neither are the wild parks, but they are still on the page (albeit in the wrong section, I believe). Bad Fallingbostel is a VERY small town with hardly any shops. So the reason I put in information on the shopping centres is to let people know what is around & that there ARE good places to go shopping. I also note that there are links to the other pages on the bottom of the Fally page (Bremen - waterfront shopping centre) but some people may not know much about Bremen or know that it is close to Fally, and may not even think to click on the Bremen page.....

I was instructed to put information on the Fallingbostel page and get the page up to a very high standard (i.e. the Celle page) but because Fallingbostel is a VERY small town, as I have stated before, I am limited to the information I can put in, so to make it more interesting and more knowledgeable I believe that the information I have been putting in is sufficient and will benefit people who look at the page and want to know more about Fallingbostel. If it was me looking up information on Fallingbostel and I looked on the Wikitravel site for the first time I would find it highly useful having all the information I had put in

Kirsty Clayton - Fallingbostel HIVE

Hi Kirsty. I think you need to go back and look through the manual of style.

The Get out section is not for information on how to get out of town, but rather information on daytrips and where to go next.

A given listing should be placed in one and only one article, that is, the city where it is located, or if there is no article there, the closest destination that does have an article. If Bad Fallingbostel is such a small town, it will likely end up with a small article, and that's just the way it is...

We need to do zoo articles

Zoo's are part of a travel thing, sooooo yeah can I do it?Cinzoo man 12:18, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Any other things you might suggest with zoos?Cinzoo man 19:14, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

Nothing I can think of. A zoo should be a rather short listing with a general overview, placed in the See section of its respective city article. It should be complete with address, directions if any, contact information, hours, prices, and a link should be provided to the zoo's website for those who want more detailed information. That's really about it.texugo 22:24, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

Thanks, what do you mean by See section?Cinzoo man 09:44, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Well, for example, the Cincinnati Zoo already has an adequate listing in the See section of the Cincinatti article.texugo 09:50, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

I am sorry I am making all this trouble, but I did the same thing for the wikipedia page, and they blocked me for no reason, I am not lying they blocked me for no reason, I referenced everything and got important info, including the gorillas names and when they were born and who their parents were. So could you please request an unblock that would be mot grateful, sorry for asking you this but I am desperate. I also made that page because I want people to know all the animals and the history of the exhibits at the zoo.Cinzoo man 09:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT) by the way to ask for an unblock request, ask GwenGale and DonLammers.

Sorry, we have nothing to do with Wikipedia here, and I have no knowledge of you edits there that caused you to be blocked.texugo 09:59, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Oh uuuum thanks though, so what can I do for this wiki travel for the zoo?Cinzoo man 10:02, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Can you at least show me the sandbox?Cinzoo man 10:17, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Did I mention I balled crying when they deleted my edits and broke my computer, I worked a total of 8 months on that including going to the zoo twice a week to make sure that every species was correct in it's right place.Cinzoo man 10:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

The Cincinnati Zoo is already adequately covered here on Wikitravel. The sandbox is here. texugo 10:22, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Thanks, but I want people to know every species on here.Cinzoo man 10:23, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Message from Marcben

Hi there, thank you for cleaning up the mess-ups in the Article I wrote. I am not an english native speaker. But I really want to help travelers to glance at my place, Tomohon too. I appreciate your corrections as I am a new people of writing reviews here. Also, I want to write about Manado, Minahasa, Bitung, and other interesting parts of Northern Sulawesi. I hope that you won't stop correcting the errors and improper things. Thanks and Cheers. —The preceding comment was added by Marcben (talk • contribs)

Johor Bahru intercity bus schedule from Larkin terminal

They also have intercity bus schedules for the Wikitravel article on Kuala Lumpur and Malacca, with the names of the bus companies, destinations, frequency, times of departures and ticket prices indicated. The only thing that is different between the Johor Bahru intercity bus schedule and the Kuala Lumpur/Malacca intercity bus schedules is that the information in the latter is not put in a table format. I have a lot of time and effort compiling the Johor Bahru intercity bus schedule. I feel that this information is useful for travellers planning to go by bus to various destinations in West Malaysia.
Message from Lawrence, 24 October 2011

Please bring it up on the article talk page. My concern is that this article has too much detail already-- it's only a city of 900,000, yet it is the absolute longest city article we have, longer than the articles for cities many times bigger, and it's the 3rd longest we have overall, after only China and Japan. That means that this article needs big cuts. I don't know the city well enough to cull restaurant or hotel listings, but I do know that, despite the fact that you can find other articles with intricately detail bus information, we generally do not maintain these kinds of line-by-line detailed compendiums when there are as many options as this article has. There are other tables and lists still in the article that I think should be cut as well. texugo 23:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

Kochi (India)

Hi Texugo, just want to express my support for your recent edit at Kochi (India). Many of the Indian article are really in a mess. Bangalore comes to mind but it is far from isolated. I think some really drastic action may be required. Not sure of the best way to do it. Some contributors have no doubt put serious and very well intentioned effort into the article. It would be a pity to alienate them by possibly ablating their contributions. They may return and become more involved later if the article/s can be more defined and clarified in regard to content, if they see their content has 'vanished' they may be less than encouraged. Then again we cannot affor to be nostalgic here, if the content involves shallow, repetitious listings then we really need to clean it out of there. We could possibly consider sweeping a great deal of it onto the talk pages leaving a core of 'filtered' content but doing that can be a bit challenging at times. Also many casual editors may not find their way to the talk pages. Do you have any thoughts on this? -- cheers-- felix 04:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Yeah, Kochi has long been among our 10 longest city articles, and used to be even longer than it is now. I have previously removed large chunks of it and put them on the talk page there, and there has been a bit of discussion. Personally, I don't care whether we put the removed things on the talk page or just take them out entirely, but there is still a great deal of culling that needs to happen, and I don't think we can afford to be too ginger about it. As far as I'm concerned, restaurants and hotels can at this point be culled simply on the basis of how complete their listings are, and I think we need to talk about whether it's actually useful to recommend so many blood banks, ambulance services, cosmetics shops, libraries, opticians, hairdressers, and other things of only marginal use to the average traveller. I personally think most of that stuff should be nuked. texugo 06:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

The Harz Mountains Germany - Brocken Region.

Hello there.

I have been trying to update or start a page for the brocken Region in the Harz mountains in Germany. I have been there and according to the Harz page it is a region within itself. As one of the 20 most noted attractions in germany and its general location, activities and surrounding towns, it deserves a page of its own. It would be sad to see this area skipped over with just a few lines. Living in this area I have been there on countless occasions over the last 30 years. Obviously only to the last 20 years since the GFR was reunited. I would be grateful for your comments on this matter,

Your help and understanding is appreciated.

I would begin by adding information to Harz or more specific info to the respective town articles themselves. The Harz article itself is already outside of our hierarchy system (overlapping other regions), and creating a new article for a subsection of something that already overlaps is really frowned upon by the community at large here, not to mention the fact that a Brocken article was previously created and deleted for much the same reason. Technically, we are not supposed to do "mountain chain" articles at all. texugo 20:55, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Thumbnails on the right

The comment you made with the edit on Prince Rupert makes it seem like this is Wikitravel policy, but I can't seem to find it in the help pages or in the pub anywhere. Have to admit it looks better, but where is the policy, out of curiousity? - Wmcduff 02:34, 25 October 2011 (EDT)